Amnesty For Gang Bangers?

“I know that they are not all so, but I know there are racists—‘rednecks,’ as they say in Mississippi,” Silva said. “They are very racist, and don’t want us. But there is no such thing as pure blood."

How is "redneck" not a racial slur?

If you aren't here LEGALLY, get out. Simple and to the point.

If you're here legally, welcome - regardless of where you came from.

Just follow the rules instead of the Rio Grand river.

I guess we're back to that question that we raised some weeks back—how to define "legal"?

Cubans = legal
Peruvians = illegal

I guess that's one way. Others?

So you're all about following all the "rules" already on the books, eh, Jo-D? Does that apply to gay marriage?

Unfortunately Donna, yes it does apply to gay marriage.. which is why we work to change the laws. SO smart alleck, until the laws are changed on how to be in this country legally, said rules apply.

Next?

Define legal? Following the process for becoming a citizen or temporary worker - be it just to be here or as an asylum seeker from an oppressive country.. just simply follow the steps and paperwork instead of running across the border or floating here on a bath-tub raft. I mean, what's hard about "legally" ??

I agree. Why can they just not go through the proper channels, instead of sneaking in, then demanding that the law be changed?

"Redneck" is more of an ethnic than a racial slur, LawClerk.

Jo-D, the question is, are our laws ethical? Are they practical? The reason why I believe gay marriage should be legal is because I believe that it is ultimately unethical for the government to adopt what is essentially a religious position on unions between consenting adults. The reason why Jim Crow was finally disbanded was because those laws were grossly unethical. But if we follow your reductive line of reasoning, them blacks shoulda just shut up and followed the law, eh?

If we do not provide some pathway for the 12 million undocumented workers living in the U.S. to become citizens, we are no better than proponents of Jim Crow. After all, what are we to do otherwise? Deport 12 million people? The harm it would do is so horrifying it should not be given serious consideration by any American, apart from the fact that it is grossly impractical. Should these immigrants simply remain illegal? If a mother has worked in the U.S. for 15 years and has had two children here, meaning that those children are American citizens, is it ethical to deport that women and deprive her children of their mother? Is is practical?

As for your comment Trust, it is not illegal immigrants who are pushing for the law to be changed. If it were, they would have no traction. It is the business community, who rely on these workers, and it is millions of citizens like me, who deplore the short-sighted nativism and right-wing electioneering that has turned this into a national crusade of xenophobia.

Oh, I forgot to mention that LawCLerks' point is incredibly trivial. If one Latina makes one racial or ethnic slur, that means what? That it's OK? That they deserve the same in return? I've known several Mexicans who were racist toward Mayans. Does that mean it's OK to be racist against Mexicans?

So let me get this straight, Brian. According to you, if you support immigration enforcement, you are a xenophobe?

Brian: Does it mean that we have to tolerate racial slurs from anyone?

Wait, I know the answer to that one.

To answer Brian, the mother AND her 2 children should be deported. She shouldn't have been here in the first place to have 2 children. I don't agree with the "born here? you're a citizen!" to the extent it applies to illegal parents being here. If the parents came here and became LEGAL citizens by following the law, then their children have a birth-right as well.

We can provide them "some pathway" by giving them 1 year to get legal. If not by then, get out and take your family with you.

It's also true that she seemed to be using "redneck" to apply to people bigoted against Latinos—not all white people. The same people who don't like "redneck" used that way also don't like the word "bigot" or "racist" substituted, I've found. They just don't want it pointed out, and will do anything to change the subject.

Personally, I am a redneck by birth—Scotch Irish from a trailer park in Neshoba County. I don't like it when someone assumes all whites are anything; however, I have no problem understanding the meaning of "redneck" behavior. I'm not offended by what she is saying.

We can provide them "some pathway" by giving them 1 year to get legal. If not by then, get out and take your family with you.

Pray tell...how would someone here illegally "get legal" in one year?

SO smart alleck, until the laws are changed on how to be in this country legally, said rules apply.

Nope, Jo-D, you can't slime out of this one by calling me a silly name.

You're NOT arguing for changing the laws, or hadn't you noticed? And I have a funny feeling that you don't want homosexuals discriminated against, or hurt in any way, or to pay taxes without representation, or whatever, until those laws are changed -- as you seem to be arguing should be case with Latinos.

And I would agree with you. I'm not even gay. Imagine.

Some of y'all are not putting Mississippi's best foot forward here. And with members of marginalized groups making these kinds of comments, I feel like we dropped right into the middle of the sequel to "Crash."

Deport 'em until the laws are changed to not deport 'em! Gay bash until the laws are changed to outlaw gay bashing!

Folks, if you're not Native American, you really ought to use your brain and your heart a bit more often. Lord.

And Brian's point is right on. The problem here is that the business community, too often, gets to dictate who gets to be legal and who isn't.

Need labor cheaper than Americans will do? Bring 'em in!

Don't need them any longer? Kick 'em out!

There really is a special place in hell for people who use people for economic gain, and mistreat them when they're not needed. Even the Bible says so.

I am all for immigrants coming to this country and working hard and building a new life for themselves. I just think it should be done in an orderly way, not being smuggled across the border and trying to get a job picking apples for less than minimum wage. I agree that there needs to be a speedier path for people who are just seeking basic labor in this country, both for their benefit and the benefit of industries that depend on that labor, but I do not think it should just come in blanket amnesty. I believe firmly that anyone, whether they are here illegally from Mexico, El Salvador, Sweden or any other country should not just be allowed to stay. They should have to go by the proper channels, otherwise borders and national sovereignty do not mean anything.

Also, just a note. Donna, didn't you leave Mississippi in the early 80s for greener pastures and you've only been back here for about 5 years? Just asking.

I agree that there needs to be a speedier path for people who are just seeking basic labor in this country, both for their benefit and the benefit of industries that depend on that labor, but I do not think it should just come in blanket amnesty.

Who offered blanket amnesty?

st think it should be done in an orderly way, not being smuggled across the border and trying to get a job picking apples for less than minimum wage.

Why do you think that happens?

Also, just a note. Donna, didn't you leave Mississippi in the early 80s for greener pastures and you've only been back here for about 5 years? Just asking.

I left in 1983, saying I would never come back because I was so disgusted by the racism and xenophobia I grew up around (then against blacks, Catholics, Jews and Choctaws mostly). I naively thought that Mississippi had the market cornered on bigotry. I found out that we don't—although, inevitably, the lower education and poverty levels, the more likely people are to look for other people to be better than. And the more homogenous the dominant culture, the more better they think they are than other people.

I came back because I love the state and realized it's mine, too, to do and say as I will here—even if there are some loudmouths who think their ideas run the state (they don't). I also want to do my part to make my home state the best it can be. Native Mississippians can't do that by fleeing and staying away.

Why do you ask?

I second Todd's question: Who offered "blanket amnesty"?

I'm still undecided on the Amnesty issue or so-called Immigration bill. And I ain't telling my reasons either. But I'm clear in my belief that we should all leave except the American Indians then let them decide who returns if anybody.

I ask only because you invoke your roots a good bit.

I think many people saw the bill as "Blanket Amnesty", and a gimme for business which imports cheap labor rather than pay honest wages and obey labor laws.

Export Jobs and Import Illegals to work for cheap... how're the rest of us supposed to live again?

Good point Ironghost.

Ugh...

Ok. Here's how I see it. I have no problem with immigration. In fact, let as many in as possible. From everywhere. But first... I WANT OUR BORDER SECURE. COMPLETELY. So, that NO ONE. FROM EITHER SIDE. Can get in. Comprende?

Now, with that being said.

It's not the immigrants that bother me. It's that we do not know who they are, their background, etc.... Seriously, what is it going to take for you to understand that *anyone* get through our borders, NORTH and SOUTH?

We have a welfare state that is out of control, and sure... it attracts people. So, let's get rid of it. It's not Constitutional. And yeah, it is that easy. It's not the people coming over that "the xenophobes" have a problem with. It's the fact that they are getting social services that "the xenophobes" have to pay for, and the illegals aren't paying into. See?

And as for the "trivial" comment earlier... It's not trivial Brian. If the tables were turned, ya'll would be in a tizzy about it. But, since it's against a white dude... No harm, no foul. When can we bury that word?

And as for the "trivial" comment earlier... It's not trivial Brian. If the tables were turned, ya'll would be in a tizzy about it. But, since it's against a white dude... No harm, no foul. When can we bury that word?

You might need to take that up with Jeff Foxworthy.

I think many people saw the bill as "Blanket Amnesty", and a gimme for business which imports cheap labor rather than pay honest wages and obey labor laws.

Blanket amnesty is a massive fine and a return home for years of waiting? That's kinda the problem with those that opposed to this bill because it's "amnesty" -- it isn't.

Export Jobs and Import Illegals to work for cheap... how're the rest of us supposed to live again?

That's something to take up with the companies that hire illegals illegally because they don't want to pay people a working wage. As the gun folks like to say, I'd start by enforcing the laws on the books. ;-)

It's that we do not know who they are, their background, etc....

You know, Clerk, I hear that Timothy McVeigh was actually from Peru.

I think many people saw the bill as "Blanket Amnesty",

Why would they think that?

Now, with all this talk of "secure" borders, I'm feeling a "bait and switch" coming on from the formerly xenophobe-sounding corner. I'm for "secure" borders, too. What does that have to do with deporting a hard-working Latino and her native-born children?

Really, which issue do you prefer to discuss here?

And, is no one here considering the possibility (er, certainty) that Big Business' poor treatment of their workers, of whatever stripe, is part of the damn problem?

Think. It. Through.

Ugh indeed..

Donna, I always find it amazing on this site that anyone who disagrees with you, is simply wrong or simply wronger.

As a gay man, I'm forced to live by this country's rules until they are changed. I work to change them. So be it for aliens.

People coming to this country illegally isn't in the same boat as me being gay. This isn't about an un-changeable phycical trait, such as color or sexual orientaion, Donna.

It's about the millions of illegal people... and I'm not just talking about Mexicans.. I'm talking about EVERY one who is here illegally.. so first, stop making this a race issue - I simply do not CARE what nationality the person is.. if he or she is here illegally, get out.

I agree with the Native American statement. NONE of us deserve to be here. But this isn't like we're a brand new country that just decided yesterday to take away the land from Native Americans and claim it for ourselves. We've been here for 200+ years. ILLEGALS HAVE NOT.

I hate this country in the state it has gotten into over the last 15 years and I assure you, as soon as I am able to afford to do so, I'm out. And I also assure you that whatever country I decide to move to.. it will be done LEGALLY - by its laws and its paperwork. I promise not to sneak in and then demand that I be allowed to rape my new country's social system. I promise to work hard, and pay my new country's taxes instead of avoiding the nation's tax collecting arm via fake and forged documentation. I promise to spend my money in my new country instead of sending 50% to 90% back to some family member in my former country so it can be spent there instead of in the economy that's taking care of me.

If the tables were turned, ya'll would be in a tizzy about it.

How would one turn these particular tables? And I agree with Todd: Deport Jeff Foxworthy. The damn hater of all things redneck!

But, since it's against a white dude... No harm, no foul.

What white guy? Clerk, she didn't say, "LawClerk is a damn redneck." She called *bigots* "rednecks." You don't have to like it, but it not the same thing as calling black people n*ggers or Latins sp*cks. At least criticize what she did, not what some paranoid white dude thinks she did.

When can we bury that word?

As a card-carrying redneck, I refuse to allow my word to be buried, dude. As us next time.

Donna, you are about as far from being a redneck as someone who lived in New York for over a decade then decides to slum it down south. Oh wait...

Jo-D, don't leave. Trust me. You're gonna want to stay. Things are going to get *very* interesting in the 2008 election. :)

So McVeigh is from Peru? Um... ok. Thanks for that tidbit.

No, Jo-D, people are "wrong" when they're wrong. Why are you complaining about being disagreed with? *That* particular trait of some of the posters here gets real old—the inevitable whine when someone dares challenge them.

These are remarkable statements:

As a gay man, I'm forced to live by this country's rules until they are changed. I work to change them. So be it for aliens.

And you're right: "Aliens" (I've heard homosexuals called that, too, by the way) should go on back "home"—including, according to you, the ones born here—and work from there to change our laws. That makes perfect sense.

<I>People coming to this country illegally isn't in the same boat as me being gay. This isn't about an un-changeable phycical trait, such as color or sexual orientation, Donna.

Funny, I've heard many black people say that being gay isn't the same thing as being black, which of course it's not.

Persecution is persecution. Bigotry is bigotry. Rationalization is rationalization. "Other" is "other."

I thought you told me once that you were married to a black man once. Am I mistaken? If so, how was that following the law until it is changed by all the law-abiding people such as yourself who do not, apparently, believe in challenging laws until they're changed. Why rush it, after all?

(Clerk, be sure to recognize sarcasm when it walks up and pees on your ankle.)

So, Trust, what are you saying about rednecks, huh? That they/we can't pull them/ourselves up by their/our bootstraps and get an education? That they/we can't escape the trailer park? That they/we have to use the Sears catalog for TP our entire lives? That they don't let us leave the state? That we don't wear shoes?

Why must you insult me and my people that way? I'm mortified.

I happen to believe in the American dream. You?

Funny, I've heard many black people say that being gay isn't the same thing as being black, which of course it's not.

Funny: I've heard many gays saying its just like being black. And the blacks I know are offended by that.

(I lived in NYC, North Dakota, D.C., Virginia, Nantucket and Colorado over that 18 years, Trust, and was a deejay in all those places—one reason I moved around, other than the desire to interact with many different kinds of people. I lived in Colorado Springs all told about the same amount of time that I lived in NYC, I think. And the majority of my 46 years has been spent in central Mississippi—in Philadelphia, where my people are from and buried in the red clay, in Starkville where I went to State, and right here in Jacktown. For what it's worth.)

That's true, Lady. That's my point. Or, one of them.

Funny, I've heard many black people say that being gay isn't the same thing as being black, which of course it's not.

Funny, I knew you were going to bring that up. What part of "un-changeable physical trait" didn't you understand? Blacks can't change their skin color and I can't change my sexual orientation. Illegal aliens CAN change their legal status...

And you're right: "Aliens" (I've heard homosexuals called that, too, by the way) should go on back "home"—including, according to you, the ones born here—and work from there to change our laws. That makes perfect sense.

Common sense should tell you that the laws don't need changing in the case of immigration.. they just need following. People are not prohibited from moving to the USA and becoming citizens. They just have to simply follow the process. Unfortunately, there is no in place process for gay people to follow to get married, not federally anyway. If I were in Massachusetts, then I'd be saying the same thing about Massachusetts gay couples wanting to marry: follow the Massachusetts process or don't marry. For places that have prohibitions on same-sex marriage (as I said, immigrants aren't prohibited from becoming a US citizen), those are the kinds of laws that need to be changed.

You're talking apples and oranges here and it just don't work with me. Always first to toss up my sexuality as if it's your own weapon of mass destruction. I've laid it out as plainly as I can, the non-correlation between my sexual orientation and how there's no process for me and my rights and their being here in defiance of a system that allows them to be as long as they go through the proper procedures.

Donna, I am merely saying that you seem to enjoy casting yourself as an redneck when it suits the purpose of being able to criticize Mississippi and Mississippians, by using the idea of "I'm one of you, too." My point is, your not a redneck and your pretty far from having any Southern identity. I am a life long Mississippian who has never run away from the state. I also grew up in a very, very poor and rural place and come from humble roots, but I do not use them to prop up myself.

Jo-D,

I don't have any stats to prove this, but I bet there are thousands of US citizens "raping our social system." We see it everyday. People faking disabilities to get a check. And of course, those among us who milk the welfare system for every "free" penny that is out there. I don't believe that immigrants (whether legal or not) are the downfall to our social systems.

The people who are trying to have a better life shouldn't be "put out," the people who have the power to show them the right way, and decides not to because of personal gain, should be held accountable.

What part of "un-changeable physical trait" didn't you understand?

I didn't say I didn't understand it. I'm telling you that other people respond to your arguments about *your* persecution similarly to the way you respond to others about theirs.

Common sense should tell you that the laws don't need changing in the case of immigration.. they just need following.

That's what many people, who aren't gay, say about gay-marriage laws. Why on earth would "common sense" tell me that? I get the feeling most people here don't know what the laws and arguments are, and aren't (like "blanket amnesty"?).

Besides, you just said above that "aliens" should go home and try to change the laws; now you're saying "common sense" says the laws shouldn't be changed.

I'm a bit dizzy here trying to figure out what you are arguing, in fact, Jo-D. Do you know?

Do you not understand that the *only* non-bigoted argument here to have is about the laws and the procedures and what they should be? If you're just throwing everything you can find at "aliens," don't blame us when people start thinking negative stuff about your intentions.

No, Trust, I am a redneck. Ethnically speaking. Why do you want that taken from me because I'm not outraged at Silva's characterization of bigots as "rednecks." Truth is, many of my people have persecuted people of other races and ethnicities for a long time, usually because they allowed themselves to be cast against them in a silly game of "who's superior?" or "who got here first?" — a game actually played for the benefit of people who weren't giving us po' folk a damn thing in return for our loyalty and bigotry on their behalf. This history of bigotry is what has turned "redneck" into a negative word.

Personally, I prefer to take it back rather than bury it, and show the world that not all rednecks believe the way that Silva think we do. The burden is on us to show it.

Matt, you sho nuff know how to get a hot one going. When I moved back here in 1992 I was disappointed I couldn't find any Mexican food after leaving Texas. I even asked myself "where are the Mexicans and other nationalities?" Then I said I bet they figure or know Misssissippi isn't ready for them yet. Then about 10 years later I started seeing Mexican restaurants popping up everywhere. I said Mississippi has changed and is now ready for prime time. Are we Americans really ready for or desirious of some more Mexicans, Black folks, other minorities or poor folks? Why are we so uncomfortable with other people competing for our space, jobs, lifestyles, good will, etc? This question is posed to all Americans regardless of race, background or national origin. Are we insecure, racist, zenophobic, selfish, surly, or so happy that we're not in the mood to risk change or challenge unless we vote for or ask for it,etc.?

I also grew up in a very, very poor and rural place and come from humble roots, but I do not use them to prop up myself.

You just did, Trust. And that's your right.

I'd proud of where I came from, and where I've come to. And I don't give a rat's a$$ whether you believe that it is possible, or ethical or something, for a Neshoba County redneck to get so uppity as to get a good education and—HEAVEN FORBID!!!—go off and live in Noo Yawk City for a few years.

Get off your high horse. You don't own Mississippi, dude.

And, boy, do I love saying "rat's a$$."

Donna, I'm not talking about redneck being a negative word. I'm just saying I don't think you are one. I don't doubt that you think you are, but your not. Its just what I think, as a real Mississippian.

The people who are trying to have a better life shouldn't be "put out,"

Uh, yes, they should.. if they aren't here LEGALLY.

Also, Ray, xenophobic, not zenophobic. I guess zenophobia is a fear of a greek philosopher.

Trust you know I can't spell!!!

Its ok. My grammar and spelling is pretty rough.

Y'all are an interesting rainbow coalition, let me tell you! Glad you can find something to agree on. ;-)

Trust, you're hilarious. So how do you define "redneck"? Oh, I got it: Someone who agrees with and does not challenge Trust.

(And I hate to tell you, but "Real Mississippian" has been watered down a bit due to its place on the top of Gannett's local outlet.)

You really don't know that what you think about who is "real" only matters to you, do you? That's kind of the textbook definition of "privileged"—to go around declaring that you are a "real ___________" and others aren't. Why are you wasting life like that?

Try spreading love, or handing out some loaves and fishes or something. It's a better use of your energy and humanity than going around setting up false competitions that only matter to you. Try mattering.

Then should people be allowed to live together as a married couple would if they don't do it legally?

And I consider myself a real Mississippian, even though I'm not from here. I came here, went back to Kentucky for about a year, then realized I really missed here. I'm here by my choice, which makes me just as real Mississippi as anyone else. :)

The definition of real Mississippian is hard to pin down.

Donna, I didn't say for them to go back home and change the laws.. I said they should follow the laws until they are changed, or work for them to be changed.. as in, someone that's here legally work to change them. Sorry I wasn't as specific. I assumed you understood. Silly me.

And you still missed what I said.

Difference # 1:
There is NO process for gay couples to get married in the US. Because there is NO process for gay couples to get married in the US, laws need to be changed. I am banned from marrying my partner. Immigrants are NOT banned from becoming LEGAL citizens. In fact, they are encouraged to do so. I'm not encouraged to marry.

There IS a process for immigrants to become citizens. Because there IS a process for immigrants to become citizens, there is no laws that need to be changed let alone broken by them. No one is banning them from becoming citizens. In fact, it's encouraged by the simple fact that there are laws in place to help them become citizens. Do you know of any laws to help me get married?

Do you not understand that the *only* non-bigoted argument here to have is about the laws and the procedures and what they should be?

There you go again.. telling everyone else what's right and that's it, no matter what.

No, the ONLY non-bigoted argument here is realizing that this isn't about bigotry. I didn't say anything about a particular race, other than when I said Native Americans own this land. In fact, I said I didn't care what country you came from. Do I need to further clarify that by saying I don't care what race you are as well? Do you understand THAT?

Let me be clear: If you are here ILLEGALLY - as in you're here, undocumented, circumventing the laws and procedures that are here in the first place to help you be here LEGALLY, get out - and yes, take your children with you. Bring them back when you are LEGAL.

Climbing to that moral high ground, eh Donna? A Real Mississippian to me is someone who doesn't run away from the state, then come back to try to be a big fish in a small pond.

Then should people be allowed to live together as a married couple would if they don't do it legally?

Lady, is there a law that bans living together? Then if so, I guess so.

Mississippi's cohabitation law is specific to the sexes of the persons co-habitating. It's one of the few bright spots Mississippi gays have because it doesn't call us out in the law.. it says a man and woman co-habitating.. doesn't say same sex or man and man, woman and woman. Give it time though, I'm sure Sen. Nunnelee will change that.

Beautifully answered, Jo-D.

Jo-D, your logic still isn't working. Back away and think about it for a minute: You are mixing up two different arguments—that of whether the laws as they are make sense for everyone. If they do not, then all of us should be actively trying to change them.

Then you seem to be purposefully dodging that question by saying that if they are illegal, they are illegal and should go back home, including the children born here, and wait around for people over here to change the laws.

Why don't you just move to Massachusetts and get married? Why are you staying in a place that considers your partnership sinful, disgusting, alien, freakish and to many, even illegal? Why don't you go somewhere where you fit in better and wait for Mississippi to come around to your point of view. Because, I'm sure if all gay people were out of sight, out of mind, then Mississippians would very quickly embrace homosexuals and the idea of gay marriage because, you know, lack of contact helps heal all bigotry.

Now, why don't we all get our heads out of the clouds and talk about the specifics of the law. What do you like about current immigration policies, Jo-D, and what do you think should be changed? Let's all start being specific, shall we?

And I don't think Donna is trying to be a big fish in a small pond. She's trying to perform a service, which is getting the truth out there for those of us regular Joes to read.

And Jackson is a small pond?

Jo-D,

Where would I be able to email you at? And, can you keep my email confidential please? If so, I'd like to ask you a question!

Sorry Ladd, didn't catch the sarcasm. I knew McVeigh was a citizen, just don't know *where* he's originally from. No biggie. Doesn't matter much where he's from I guess. And yeah, I know what you're getting at. That he was here legally, eh?

Did you know that you can *gasp* STILL buy fertilizer?! It's not banned yet. Oooh...

Anyways. I already told you specifics of the LAW. Build the fence. It's already the *law.* However, they haven't funded it yet. Hmm....

Before you can even talk about *anything* else, you MUST build the fence to secure the border. Why is that so hard to understand. It's like not having doors in your house. How are you going to know who is going in and out?

There IS a process for immigrants to become citizens. Because there IS a process for immigrants to become citizens, there is no laws that need to be changed let alone broken by them. No one is banning them from becoming citizens. In fact, it's encouraged by the simple fact that there are laws in place to help them become citizens. Do you know of any laws to help me get married?

Couple of problems here. First, there are laws that effectively ban people from becoming citizens because they dictate whom we will allow in legally. You need to have special skills, family in this country, fit a diversity quotient or be granted asylum. It's not just a matter of going down to the Post Office in Matamoros and signing up for a visa and passport.

Which leads to my second point...this thread is about the LEGISLATION that is CHANGING the law so that there would be a guest worker program that allows people to be here legally to work in industries that, presumably, require (or just WANT) these low-wage workers on a seasonal or temporary basis.

Legislation changes laws, which is what you're arguing for, Jo-D, right?

Let me be clear: If you are here ILLEGALLY - as in you're here, undocumented, circumventing the laws and procedures that are here in the first place to help you be here LEGALLY, get out - and yes, take your children with you. Bring them back when you are LEGAL.

Incidentally, there is also a way to be here *legally* and not become a citizen. It seems like you're conflating the two, Jo-D. I don't think anyone has ever suggested some sort of instant citizenship, and certainly not for illegals. Hell, Craig Furgeson has his own late night talk show on CBS and he's still waiting years to get his citizenship.

Frankly, I don't know if people are arguing this from a xenophobic level or just from a rhetorical level and not really dealing with what the legislation actually is. I suppose that's part and parcel of the talk radio world we live in -- it doesn't matter if it's true as long as it sells more Gold Bond Medicated Powder.

And, actually, that's not to say I necessarily agree with the immigration legislation. I think what gets missed in it, however, is that "law and order" types calling this amnesty are utterly failing to castigate the corporations that are breaking the law left and right and up and down to employ these people. From Bush's point of view, he's actually trying to get those companies out of trouble, not the immigrants.

I believe we should err toward allowing quite a bit of immigration, and I think we need to own up to the true affects that NAFTA is having on immigration and low-skill job opportunities throughout North America.

I also think you've got to do what's practical in these cases, which is going to mean a combination, a compromise and some sort of way forward for both the companies that hire immigrants and the immigrants that come here seeking the work that is clearly made available to them.

Stop putting words in my mouth.. I NEVER said anything close to "waiting around for people over here to change the laws". What I DID say was basically, DON'T WAIT, FILL OUT THE PAPERWORK, FOLLOW THE PROCESS, BECOME LEGAL!

So you want specifics? OK..

Fill out the paperwork and come here LEGALLY. (duh)

Instead of having spent $500 Billion on the war in Iraq and an additional $1 Billion a day in Iraq, that money would pay for alot of border security - including a wall from coast to coast, top and bottom, Canada and Mexico - and still have a few billion left over.

No welfare services without proper I.D. No foodstamps, no WIC, no health care, no medicine, no business loan, nothing. Show proof you are here legally. If you can't, see ya!

If you've been here a while already ILLEGALLY, once you become LEGAL, you pay an immigration tax for a number of years equal to the years you were here draining our tax base. This will be deducted from your paycheck, just like all the other taxes you were supposed to be paying but didn't so I had to.

Specific enough for ya?

LawClerk..

jody**AT**equality.ms

Posted it like that so spam bots don't bombard me. Remove the **AT** and replace with @

What if they are in the proper process to come here legally? Would that be a different story? Or not?

I have no dog in this fight, really: I haven't made up my mind in either direction. I'm just weighing the answers.

iTodd: I'm mostly referring to those, when I say LEGALLY, who are sneaking over the borders with no intention ever of returning to their home countries. The people sneaking in here to live here permanently, as if they were a citizen but really aren't.

I addressed this above Lady, but I'll say it again: If they are already here, get the process going by being here legally via greencard/work visa and while you're here, get the process going of becoming a legal United States citizen. That's the way I see it. Following the process in place rather than sneaking in.

If they are already in the legally defined process, great, thanks for following the process and welcome to America - the next China in terms of population numbers.

My apolgies, Jo-D: I wasn't quite clear in my question. Do you thing immigrants who are using the correct legal process to become citizens but have not completed this process should be eligible for government assistance? You did make your answer quite clear, and I thank you for that. I was going in a little different direction, and didn't throw out the turn signal. :)

My apologies, Jo-D: I wasn't quite clear in my question. Do you thing immigrants who are using the correct legal process to become citizens but have not completed this process should be eligible for government assistance? You did make your answer quite clear, and I thank you for that. I was going in a little different direction, and didn't throw out the turn signal. :)

Sorry about the double post. Could somebody delete the first one? I spelled a word incorrectly. :)

I NEVER said anything close to "waiting around for people over here to change the laws".

Earlier you said (after saying that all here "illegally" should be deported):

I NEVER said anything close to "waiting around for people over here to change the laws". I didn't say for them to go back home and change the laws.. I said they should follow the laws until they are changed, or work for them to be changed.. as in, someone that's here legally work to change them.

That sounds like you're saying people here illegally should (a) leave immediately and then (b) let people here fight to change the laws if they don't like them. Or something damn close to that.

I think I'll bow out of our particular thread here, Jo-D; we seem to be chasing the same tail over and over again. I think we get your point: Send the "illegals" home now. Let's stipulate that and try to move this thread forward a bit. I'd really like to see more discussion of what is and should be legal, rather than just empty rhetoric about "being illegal."

Martin Luther King committed "illegal" acts on a regular basis. The point then, as it should be now, was to discuss what was and should be legal, not just accept the status quo.

As long as they are in the process, follows it through and it's documented, I don't see why not.

But at the same time, paying taxes is a part of that process.. such taxes fund said government assistance and if you aren't paying your part, you don't deserve it.

The reason I mention the tax issue is because, one would think, illegal aliens get paid in cash or their unethical employers simply just don't hold taxes out of their checks, claiming the alien is a "contract" employee and is responsible for his or her own taxes.

No one is accepting the status quo Donna.. we're just tired of paying for the status quo.

You asked for specifics:
What do you like about current immigration policies, Jo-D, and what do you think should be changed? Let's all start being specific, shall we?

...and I gave them to you. Apparently that still isn't good enough so yeah, it's best you respond to others besides me since I can't give you what you want to hear. I'm not going to change my opinion and you aren't going to change yours.

So, anyone else?

Jo-D, you've got mail.

Y'all, I moved the Real Mississippian(TM) discussion to its own thread since it's OT for this immigration discussion. (Obviously it's borderline troll behavior to come in and challenge people's heritage, but I wanted to play with the topic a bit, so I put it in forums.) Please discuss Real Mississipian-ism there and immigration here.

Gracias. (Translation for Real Mississippians: "Thawnk Yew!")

That's a lot of what happens in Kentucky with the tobacco farmers. They hire a lot of "contract" work, and pay "under the table" for it.

Of interest, Jo-D:

Here Illegally, Working Hard and Paying Taxes

Adriana, 27; Ana, 27; Emilio, 48; and Polo, 52, are all illegal immigrants, denizens of one of the most easily overlooked corners of the nation's labor force and almost universally ignored by the workers, shoppers and students they clean up after.

"It's like you are invisible," Adriana said.

Invisible, perhaps, but not hidden. In contrast to the typical image of an illegal immigrant — paid in cash, working under the table for small-scale labor contractors on a California farm or a suburban construction site — a majority now work for mainstream companies, not fly-by-night operators, and are hired and paid like any other American worker. [...]

More than half of the estimated seven million immigrants toiling illegally in the United States get a regular paycheck every week or two, experts say. At the end of the year they receive a W-2 form. Come April 15, many file income tax returns using special ID numbers issued by the Internal Revenue Service so foreigners can pay taxes. Some even get a refund check in the mail.

And they are now present in low-skilled jobs across the country. Illegal immigrants account for 12 percent of workers in food preparation occupations, for instance, according to an analysis of census data by the Pew Hispanic Center. In total, they account for an estimated one in 20 workers in the United States.

Jo-D, I just asked what you liked and disliked, specifically, about current immigration policy. I mean, that's what this article ostensibly was about.

iTodd: I'm mostly referring to those, when I say LEGALLY, who are sneaking over the borders with no intention ever of returning to their home countries. The people sneaking in here to live here permanently, as if they were a citizen but really aren't.

Jo-D...you're not tracking what I'm saying. You're essentially arguing for enforcement of the laws that are on the books regarding immigration. What the Bush Administration wants to do, is change those laws such that a "guest worker" status is conferred on people who were previously here illegally but who have gainful employment. (It's my contention that Bush wants to do that more in the interesting of the companies than the illegals.)

Were such a program put in place, no doubt the workers would be taxed and the companies forced to withhold, etc.

You argued earlier that if you don't like the fact that something is illegal, you change the law. That's what this is...it's changing the law, but not to grant "amnesty" or really any sort of fast-track citizenship, but largely to legalize a defacto business practice that is widespread in this country, while codifying ways to slow and control the practice.

@iTodd: So then why is everyone on Trent Lott's back for voting against it??

Ok, let me put it like this.. if the law provides "guest worker" status, that means it's temporary and eventually they have to leave.

The question is, will they?

I doubt it.

But I could be for it.. if they are in, or begin, the legal process for staying here and becoming a US citizen. If not, so sorry, see ya, take your children with ya.

Birthright citizenship is a Supreme Court decision!!!!! Think about that for a minute.

Seriously.

Drop the gays! It has nothing to do with immigration unless we are talking about an American married overseas.

Red herrings everywhere in this conversation.

Gays, in and out of relationships, pay taxes... We actually OVERPAY taxes on everything from taxes to insurance. We deserve representation. Until illegals pay taxes or are part of a tax-based relationship, how can you seek representation or benefits of taxation?

By the way, that comment is from activist gays that personally know illegals.

;]

I think you missed the point, Knol. No one said the plight of immigrants is the exact same plight as that of gays, just like your issues aren't the exact same as those of black people.

However, all struggles for freedom and respect tend to have a major point in common: the need to examine, and perhaps change, current laws. This story is about laws, and myths about them. Jo-D's response is just to enforce the laws as they exist first and foremost, seemingly, without understanding or deeper examination of them.

That approach is tragic in any freedom struggle—whether the struggle for gay rights, black freedom or for immigrants.

So, no, I won't be leaving an examples that make this much sense off the table.

Also, an article right above points out that half of "illegals" in the U.S. do pay taxes. So that argument isn't nearly as strong as some people would like it to be.

Isn't nearly as strong? OK, so then deport 6 million of them.. that's half of the 12 million number that was stated on here somewhere. Make a list of the 6 million that are paying taxes. Send them a letter telling them thanks, but you got X amount of time to become a citizen or you gotta go.. with your children. As for the other 6 million, if they aren't on that list, they - and their children if they got 'em - get immediate seats on a military transport plane back to their homeland. That flight would be much cheaper than what we're spending on them now.

The truth is, the gay examples you've been using do NOT make this much sense.. they make no sense at all.

But I digress.. because you're never wrong. ;]

@iTodd: So then why is everyone on Trent Lott's back for voting against it??
Ok, let me put it like this.. if the law provides "guest worker" status, that means it's temporary and eventually they have to leave.

The idea behind the legislation is that creating guest worker status gets people to come in and register -- and encourages the companies to work with "newly legals" and stop working with "illegals." It's not a perfect solution, just a pragmatic solution.

And to be brutally honest, I'm not sure I do support this legislation, but probably for reasons that differ from yours. I'm not sure we're taking things in the right direction by making it easier for these corporations to pay low wage workers legally. I'd prefer to see *some* intelligent discussion in this country about the employment of citizens in jobs that offer a living wage, dignity and less reliance on triage social services that is either part of or concurrent with a discussion that legalizes a low-cost immigrant workforce.

The question is, will they?
I doubt it.

The idea would be that they're more likely to follow the rules if the rules offer some give and take. If there's *some* promise of one day becoming a citizen if you get yourself legal under the new system, then perhaps you're more likely to get legal. And, again, the more we convince US companies to work with guest workers instead of illegals, the less taxing the illegal problem will be on government resources.

It's a supply and demand problem -- US companies are creating a demand for these workers and the supply is artificially constrained by their illegality. Were there legal guest worker solutions, then the demand could be met and everyone might have a little more dignity while we could spend fewer resources on fighting something that is artificially illegal. (There's a similar argument to be made against the drug war, FYI.)

But I could be for it.. if they are in, or begin, the legal process for staying here and becoming a US citizen. If not, so sorry, see ya, take your children with ya.

Actually, the way I understand it, the guest worker program would send them home after a while. I think what's most disappointing about this discussion is the fact that so many people somehow assume that the illegals come over a completely "mooch" off the system, when the fact is that the lion's share of Latino immigrants come and work very hard. That's why some more "liberal" minded people want them appreciated as simply the latest wave of immigrants who come to this country, work hard as part of the economy (they're a big part of the reason that your grocery store prices haven't shot up over the past 25 years) and eventually deserve some dignity in that process.

Talk Radio and Talk Cable turn it into something much more base than that, IMHO.

The truth is, the gay examples you've been using do NOT make this much sense.. they make no sense at all.

I never used "gay examples." Are you even reading what I'm writing? How in hell would you know whether I'm right or wrong if you're not reading what I'm writing? And stop your whining, Jo-D. You clearly think you're right, too. It's juvenile to keep whining about someone disagreeing with you.

Once again, and let me say it slowly: Whether you are talking about laws applying to black Americans, gays and lesbians, or immigrants, you need to define what the law is that you're talking about and whether it needs to be changed. Members of those groups, and others, do not want other people to make sweeping statements about "just follow the law," if they believe it hurts them. Therefore, members of those groups and all of us need to be willing to actually discuss, and know, the laws that we are urging unquestioned enforcement of. Does that spell the point out for you?

So, it sounds like what you want the law to say, then, is that immigrants who aren't paying taxes should be deported, and that those who are should not be. Am I hearing you correctly?

I'm still trying to get at how "illegal" should be defined here. You first said that all "illegals" should be deported; now it sounds like you're arguing for changing the law to say that "illegals" who pay taxes should not be deported.

Are you starting to get glimmers at all about why it's vital to discuss what "illegal" means, regardless of what group you're talking about, before making sweeping statements about them?

You first said that all "illegals" should be deported; now it sounds like you're arguing for changing the law to say that "illegals" who pay taxes should not be deported.

No, it doesn't NOW sound like I'm arguing for changing the law to say that "illegals" who pay taxes should not be deported.

My exact words: Make a list of the 6 million that are paying taxes. Send them a letter telling them thanks, but you got X amount of time to become a citizen or you gotta go.. with your children.

That sure as hell doesn't say anything about changing laws to let the tax paying ones stay but does say you got to get legal through the process or get out with the 6 million that aren't paying taxes... so I haven't a clue what orifice you pulled that out of.

And yes, you DID use gay examples. All from YOU:

So you're all about following all the "rules" already on the books, eh, Jo-D? Does that apply to gay marriage?
Posted by: ladd on Jul 19, 07 | 11:15 am

Deport 'em until the laws are changed to not deport 'em! Gay bash until the laws are changed to outlaw gay bashing!
Posted by: ladd on Jul 19, 07 | 3:08 pm

Funny, I've heard many black people say that being gay isn't the same thing as being black, which of course it's not.
Posted by: ladd on Jul 19, 07 | 4:33 pm

And you're right: "Aliens" (I've heard homosexuals called that, too, by the way) should go on back "home"—including, according to you, the ones born here—and work from there to change our laws.
Posted by: ladd on Jul 19, 07 | 4:33 pm

I thought you told me once that you were married to a black man once. Am I mistaken? If so, how was that following the law until it is changed by all the law-abiding people such as yourself who do not, apparently, believe in challenging laws until they're changed. Why rush it, after all?
Posted by: ladd on Jul 19, 07 | 4:33 pm

That's what many people, who aren't gay, say about gay-marriage laws.
Posted by: ladd on Jul 19, 07 | 5:01 pm

Why don't you just move to Massachusetts and get married? Why are you staying in a place that considers your partnership sinful, disgusting, alien, freakish and to many, even illegal? Why don't you go somewhere where you fit in better and wait for Mississippi to come around to your point of view. Because, I'm sure if all gay people were out of sight, out of mind, then Mississippians would very quickly embrace homosexuals and the idea of gay marriage because, you know, lack of contact helps heal all bigotry.
Posted by: ladd on Jul 19, 07 | 5:31 pm

Thanks, Jo-D, for all those posts. They show exactly what I'm saying: It is an example of how you should ALWAYS talk about what the law is, and should be, before you call for blanket enforcement. And gay marriage is a very good example of that, even if it makes you uncomfortable. So, yes, I will keep using it.

As for the other point on "illegals," sigh. Before you were just calling for blanket deportment for "illegals"; now that you know that many of them do in fact pay in taxes, you are willing to give them wiggle room under the law, depending on whether or not they've paid taxes. Under your plan, it sounds like it would open the door for someone to (a) come in illegally, (b) get a job paying taxes and (c) then have six months to get legal because they paid taxes.

I'm not saying that is a good or a bad idea, but it is quite different from your initial argument. And, I would add, a positive movement toward actually talking about the law rather than "deporting all the illegals now!"

Good Lord, I missed a lot. Jo-D, I want to point out that you keep talking about deporting the woman's children, but in my example, those children are U.S. citizens. Neither you nor anyone else has the right under any law to deport them because they were born on U.S. soil. You can only deport the mother.

LawClerk, our "welfare state is out of control," is it? You really flashed your conservative undies with that one, considering that the U.S. has the most minimal welfare system in the industrialized world. That's probably a debate best left for elsewhere, but I would just nod to Donna's posts about how most illegal immigrants pay taxes. This area is heavily contested in research, as you might expect, but there are many studies that show that immigrants have a net positive effect on tax revenue. They are certainly helping to prop up the social security system, and they commit crimes at a lower rate than U.S. citizens, however many times Bill O beats the lynching drum because an illegal immigrant killed someone in a drunken driving accident.

LawClerk, I think that the security argument is a smoke screen. After all, the only time al Qaeda tried to penetrate our borders was in 1999, and they tried to get in from Canada. Yet, no one talks seriously about building a wall in the north. Furthermore, it's really a block-headed approach to security, thinking that you're going to stop al Qaeda with a wall. Al Qaeda is virtually certain to enter the country the way they have in the past--using visas. Can you imagine a group of Arabs hanging out in Tijuana, trying to fit in while they hook up with a coyote to smuggle them across the border? That is a losing proposition compared to having an operative in Britain get a student visa and step off a flight in Newark. If al Qaeda were to try to get in from Mexico--and there is absolutely no evidence that they have--the way to stop them is with--wait for it--intelligence work. In other words, if a bunch of Arabs are hanging out in Tijuana, one hopes that those bumblers at the CIA might manage catch to wind of it. Even if there was a wall, why on Earth do you think it would stop sophisticated operatives, who would likely just smuggle themselves over the border in a truck or a small plane? After all, we've got millions of pounds of drugs coming into this country that way every year, and a wall wouldn't do anything to stop that traffic.

Yeah, I know what the law is and know that anyone born here is automatically a US citizen. My argument was that should not be the law. If the parents were here illegally in the first place to have the children here, then the whole family should be sent back where they came from and no US citizenship status granted on the children because, technically, they were here illegally too.

Can you imagine a group of Arabs hanging out in Tijuana, trying to fit in while they hook up with a coyote to smuggle them across the border?

That's the funniest post I've seen in a while. Go, Brian. ;-)

Could anyone tell when a wall has ever helped the "security" of a country, much less anything else?

Yeah, I know what the law is and know that anyone born here is automatically a US citizen. My argument was that should not be the law.

Oh, so now, Jo-D, you want to make laws tougher against immigrants, and deport people actually born in America. You are one slippery fella—as in all over the damn place.

Whatever. I'm not even sure Rush would take you seriously at this point. With due respect.

Not that I care whether or not Rush would take me seriously...

It's not hard to understand.. here ILLEGALLY? Get out, and take your illegal children with you. Come back when you've followed the LEGAL process for being here.

But the children are NOT illegal.

Unless we put you and yours in charge.

And you've already said that if you do sneak in and pay taxes, that you then should be able to become legal, right?

What if you have a child here in the interim?

Just helping you think through he finer points in your argument.

I've tried to stay out of this discussion, but this is maddening. Jo-D, you appear to suggest that immigrants willingly remain illegal-- which, I'm sorry, is about the stupidest thing I've read on this thread. First of all, to propose sending 12, or 6, million people home on planes is impractical and, frankly, unintelligent. More to the point, you make it seem as though immigrants could simply check off a box and "start the process" of becoming legal.

What the since-failed immigration bill proposed was for heads of households to pay a fine of up to $10,000 (which, as I've noted before, is just about impossible), then return home to their countries of origin for up to 13 years before being considered as a possible U.S. resident. Now, that bill failed, warts and all. So, as far as far as your "x amount of time" letter is concerned-- I really don't understand what you mean. Send a letter to every illegal immigrant and ask them to check a box (with an X perhaps) and "become legal?" Do you really think half would say, "Naw, I'd prefer to make a fortune by stealing Jo-D's taxes by cleaning up toxic debris at criminally low wages, just so I don't have to pay income taxes at the end of the year?"

This arguments stinks of the "Why don't they learn English?" argument. Believe me, immigrants want to know English. Just like they want to be employed legally, and pay taxes, and have medical insurance. But because of the laws on the books, they are forced to live in fear, in workplaces where they are exploited, paid low wages and responsible for paying medical bills in cash (if they're not turned away). In fact, if anyone's stealing taxes (which illegal immigrants cannot claim as refunds), it's their employers-- which, interestingly enough, you acknowledge in your own post.

Do you really think half would say, "Naw, I'd prefer to make a fortune by stealing Jo-D's taxes by cleaning up toxic debris at criminally low wages, just so I don't have to pay income taxes at the end of the year?"

That one is funny, too. In a sad kind of way.

Right on, Matt.

Pay $10,000, leave, and see if they will let you back in? I would just stay illegal and hustle the best way I can. Lots of bad things can happen in 13 years including death. Didn't seem like a really generous bill or amnesty to me.

My biggest reason for being undecided is I didn't know what the proposed bill was about. But I didn't want to tell anyone.

Folks, morality aside (and I've written about that elsewhere), let's be realistic here:

(1) We physically can't deport 12 million people. Period. Our criminal justice system isn't big enough. That's half the population of Iraq, for God's sake.

(2) Undocumented immigrants are not going to pay $10,000 and spend 13 years in Mexico to get legal. Isn't going to happen.

(1) and (2) being the case, the only realistic option is a more generous proposal. I mean, the first step in any decision-making progress should be to eliminate the options that are physically impossible to put into effect.

Welcome back Tom. :]

Thanks, Jody. It's good to be back!

I think the first good step, Tom, is to start cracking down on the border itself. Sure, your can't physically deport 12 million people, but you sure as s*hit can increase the border patrol and get a damn wall up. Lets start physicially limiting the volume of people that enter the country illegally.

Think about if you were in, say, Germany, for instance without the proper passport or documentation. They would eject your ass quicker than anything. Why should we be any different? Because extreme bleeding hearts like Donna Ladd "feel" the laws are unjust? Sovereign borders mean something. They stand for the demarcation line between one country and another and I'm all about enforcing those lines. I am also all about hard working people that want to come to the country, but people who want to do it through the proper channels.

Trust, sure, let's construct a porous and easily circumvented 700-mile, $49 billion wall to cover random sections of a 2,000-mile border. What a great use of taxpayer funds!

Seriously, Trust, if you're all about enforcing those lines I recommend doing a Peace Pilgrim style march from one end of the 2,000-mile border to the other, carrying a bullhorn and shouting "Don't cross! Don't cross!" It won't work, but then neither will the fence, and my suggestion is much cheaper.